§ Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)I am pleased to have a chance to raise with the Minister this afternoon an issue that is causing a great deal of concern in my constituency and in the whole of mid-Wales. It concerns the proposals that have been made by the magistrates courts committee to reduce the access to the criminal justice system of people living in the area. Such has been the concern that people living in the area around Llandrindod Wells—the court in that town is one of those identified for closure—have raised a petition of 3,500 names. That gives some indication of the level of concern. This is not a topic that often raises a tremendous amount of emotion and enthusiasm, but people see what is happening as a real attack on services in rural areas.
Before I go on to the meat of the issue, I must place on record the fact that my wife is a magistrate sitting in the Brecon court, and she sometimes also sits in the Llandrindod Wells and Ystradgynlais courts. It is about the latter two courts that I feel deep concern. People are worried about the proposals and about the process that led to their being made. In particular, they are worried about the magistrates courts committee, how responsive it is and what accountability it has to the people whom it serves. People are also worried about Powys county council, their paying authority, which had the opportunity to object to the proposals, but chose not to do so. In taking that decision, the authority received representations only from the magistrates courts committee, which made the proposals, and it did not have the opportunity to receive representations from other court users, such as members of the legal profession and representatives of Victim Support. In a way, it saw only one side of the argument.
I am also worried about the role of the then Lord Chancellor's Department, which is now the Department for Constitutional Affairs. While the Department claimed that the decision was a local one, it seemed to have a certain central control over the matter—a centralised iron fist within the velvet glove of localism. However, we will come back to those issues later.
I should like to set the matter in the context of the geographic and demographic nature of the area served by the courts. When I brought a delegation to Westminster to meet the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who was then a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, she looked at the case sympathetically. She pointed out that she needed an objection from the paying authority—in this case, Powys county council—before she could take any action in the matter.
The hon. Lady was also well apprised of how sparsely populated the area in question is. Some people who live in England may be more familiar with Cumbria as a sparsely populated area, for example, but the county of Powys is three times more sparsely populated. That gives some idea of the rural nature of the area. Without using visual aids, it is very difficult to give an indication of the nature of the area, so I hope that hon. Members will bear with me as I try to explain it. If one put a hinge at the bottom of Powys and tipped it towards London, 231WH it would reach almost to the Greater London area, but the magistrates courts committee's proposal is to serve the area with two magistrates courts. If one were to carry out the same hinging operation on my own constituency, Brecon and Radnorshire, it would reach to Swindon, and the proposal is that there will be only one magistrates court in that area.
The area also has very little public transport. For instance, if the magistrates court in Llandrindod Wells were closed, people would have to travel 25 miles to the court at Newtown, but the only bus service leaves at 7.40 am and does not return until 5 o'clock. That might not be so bad in some ways, but many of the people concerned live six, 10 or 12 miles from Llandrindod Wells, and have to get into Llandrindod in time to catch the bus to Newtown. Those who live in Knighton and Presteigne have no access to either Llandrindod Wells or Newtown, and we already have anecdotal stories of people hitch-hiking to court and of witnesses having to be ferried to court by solicitors. That is not very satisfactory.
§ Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD)Lawyers feel that when they are ferrying defendants around in their cars while having to conduct other business, it compromises their ability to do their job. On occasions when it is not possible for them to do so, individuals such as Robert Hanratty, a local lawyer, have sometimes found that justice has not been served because people have had such trouble getting to court that they have not been able to turn up at all.
§ Mr. WilliamsI accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are both aware of a case in which a young mother was unable to attend a court a long distance away when the issue at stake was whether the council should take her children into care. The situation raises human rights issues.
Circumstances are the same in Ystradgynlais, where travelling to Brecon over the mountain in winter conditions is sometimes impossible. Ammanford is the next magistrates court in the Dyfed-Powys area. If someone wanted to go to Swansea, they would be looking outside that area. Since the decisions have been taken, new legislation has been enacted, including the Courts Act 2003, one of whose implications is that more emphasis has been placed on the accessibility of courts. Magistrates courts committees are to be abolished under the Act, and a new system is to be put into place.
In making its case, the magistrates courts committee placed great emphasis on the problem of substandard buildings. That is understandable, but my constituents are more concerned about people than buildings. Justice delivered locally is better than justice that is delivered in an accessible building 30 or 40 miles away. Over the weekend, one of my constituents said to me that justice is a right, not a luxury. However, it is becoming something that is available to the rich with access to transport but not to the poor and less well-off in society. Poor people are as often the victims of crime as rich people, although crime against celebrities and the rich is reported in the papers.
Powys is a low-crime area because we have an efficient police service that detects a high number of crimes. Criminals are taken to court, and if they are found 232WH guilty, they are given an appropriate sentence. The certainty of apprehension, conviction and sentence makes ours a low-crime area, because criminals know that they cannot operate there with impunity. I am sure that the Minister would like to see Powys remain a low-crime area; the people who live there would certainly like it to remain as such, because they value it very much.
The running costs of the courts in Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells are very low. The extra expenditure that would be generated by the extra costs of ferrying witnesses on longer journeys and the extra remuneration from Legal Aid to solicitors because of their longer journeys and the longer time spent on a case would soon do away with any savings on running costs in respect of discontinued buildings.
Ystradgynlais is a deprived community that was based around its mine. When that industry closed, very little employment was available. The area is now pulling itself together, and there is a better environment and sense of community. The Welsh Assembly has identified it as one of the Communities First areas into which it puts regeneration money. Communities First included the 100 most deprived wards in Wales. Doing away with the court in Ystradgynlais will do nothing to enhance the sense of civic pride there. Llandrindod Wells is one of the areas in my constituency that has the highest unemployment, and many of the same arguments apply there.
I return to the process that led to what we believe is rather flawed decision making. The people felt that the magistrates courts committee did not consult them enough. They did not understand what was happening or what the outcome of the consultation process would be. Indeed, a number of threats were made by the magistrates courts committee. Yesterday, I received an e-mail from the clerk to the magistrates court:
"The procurement of the two Court Houses for Powys has reached a critical stage. If it is undermined now, then the investment which is planned for Powys will be lost. The support of the Local Authorities has been criticalforthe achievement of this investment and any wavering of this support could be fatal to both schemes.There is a real risk, that not only will the investment in new Courts for Powys be lost, but the current Court Houses will be closed sooner rather than later because they do not meet the standards required of them. Powys could be left with no effective Court … provision at all. The employment of that sort of bullying tactic by the clerk to the magistrates court has done nothing to prevent a huge wave of opposition building up in the Llandrindod Wells area. None of us wants to see a lack of investment in either Brecon or Newtown. We understand the necessity in that respect, but what we are saying is that justice will not be available to a great many of the people living in Powys unless we have better coverage of magistrates courts in Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells.
I turn now to Powys county council. There was concern when the position was put to it. It heard some threatening talk involving the suggestion that if it objected to the proposals, it could lose all the magistrates courts in Powys. Naturally, some representatives—particularly those representing the Newtown and Brecon areas—felt that they could not object because of the risk of losing their courts as well. 233WH They were put in an intolerably difficult position. Also, as I said earlier, while representations were made to them by representatives of the magistrates court, they were not able to hear representations by Victim Support, which is such a wonderful organisation in ensuring that victims can get to court and are supported in giving their evidence.
The Government have put accessibility to justice at the centre of their criminal justice system. I do not believe that the closure of the courts in Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells will do anything to further the Government's objectives, which I support. The Minister has already agreed to meet me and I thank him for that; I have no doubt that we will discuss the issues again. The point that the people of Radnorshire and Ystradgynlais are making, however, is that this was a flawed process and it should be rerun. I am sure that he will not be able to respond to that point today, but that is the position that we are coming from, and over the weeks and months to come, we shall return to the subject again.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)For the second time under your chairmanship today, Mr. Cook, it gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) on securing this important opportunity to express his views on access to magistrates courts in mid-Wales, even though the annunciator screen refers to widows' benefits, which are not quite the subject of this debate.
As the hon. Gentleman said, magistrates courts are managed by local magistrates courts committees, as is set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Many people are unfamiliar with that arrangement, and they sometimes feel that Ministers have a system of dictating what goes on at the local level. At present, there are 42 different magistrates courts committees. The arrangement is likely to change eventually with unified administration, but for the time being, we operate under that system.
Each of the magistrates courts committees is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area. It is for the MCCs to determine how many courthouses, whether they are urban or rural, and what other accommodation might be needed locally. In discharging their statutory responsibility, we expect MCCs to undertake regular reviews of their accommodation requirements. The strategic aims of the MCCs, the facilities needed and the results of user surveys are just some of the factors that MCCs take into consideration when undertaking their reviews.
Decisions to close or retain magistrates courts are also the responsibility of MCCs after consultation with the local paying authority—the local council. It is common for MCCs to consult more widely than the local paying authority, as we and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire would expect. Consultees usually include the magistrates, court staff, the police, the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, Members of Parliament and other professional users.
234WH The Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees has published a good practice guide on courthouse closure. The guide is very comprehensive and includes guidance on the impact of new legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998. It is an invaluable reference document when considering courthouse closure and the hon. Gentleman would find it well worth referring to.
The Dyfed-Powys MCC published the reasons behind the closure of courthouses in its estate strategy document, dated April 2000. It stated that, of the 14 courthouses in Dyfed Powys, 15 per cent. required major refurbishment and the remaining 85 per cent. could not be brought up to standard and had only a short-term life. To address that position, the MCC embarked on a major estate strategy to provide for sustainable and modern courthouse provision with the facilities to meet both current and foreseeable needs.
On 18 February 2003, the Dyfed-Powys MCC made a determination to close four courts in Powys—Ystradgynlais, Llandrindod Wells, Machynlleth and Welshpool. The local paying authority, Dyfed-Powys county council, did not lodge an appeal with my Department against those closures. That is a very important point. The work from Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells will be transferred to a refurbished courthouse in Brecon and the new courthouse in Newtown and the work from Machynlleth and Welshpool will also be transferred to the new courthouse in Newtown.
The decision to close the courts was reached after a period of consultation with both the paying authority and a wide variety of stakeholders, and it went beyond the guidance note issued by the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees. The overall consultation period lasted from February to April 2001 and a total of 73 responses were received, which the MCC fully considered. The Dyfed-Powys police, the witness service, which is a voice for Victim Support, and the CPS supported the MCC's proposals, but there is a difference in understanding and I want to get to the bottom of it. I am told that the witness service at least supports the proposals.
The MCC's consultation document was submitted to Powys county council and meetings were held with the individual shire committees in the county council area. Powys county council in particular discussed both the proposed closures and the provision of new courthouses at a full county council meeting in public on 16 January 2003 and, in a vote of the full council, it voted to support both. I have not had a chance to speak to Councillor Jones, the chairman of the council, but it will be interesting to know the rationale for that decision.
If a formal determination is made by an MCC and an appeal is lodged by the local paying authority with the Lord Chancellor within one month of receipt of the notification, I can have a specific role in the matter. My role in magistrates court closures is as an appellant authority in the event of an appeal being lodged. I will consider any appeal with my Department on the merits of the case presented by each party when dialogue has ended between the relevant paying authority and officials. In this case, an appeal has not been lodged, so I have not had an opportunity to decide one way or the other because the court closure is not subject to appeal. 235WH As the county council did not see fit to appeal, I have no role to play. That is not my choice; it is set out section 56(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
I understand the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the need always to try to improve access to justice and about having a strong sense of local justice. In this country we not only have justice that is administered by our peers but we expect magistrates to have a strong local connection and to live or work in the area in which they serve.
We must be realistic about what we mean by local justice. Clearly, local justice does not mean having a court on every street corner, which would be absurd. We must always balance the different factors affecting access to justice. Geographical access, important as it is, is not the only factor. Other factors such as disabled access to buildings and facilities for victims and witnesses are also important. For example, victims and witnesses may feel intimidated if they do not have separate facilities, wherever they may be. Magistrates courts committees have a difficult job to ensure that they deliver the best combination of services for an entire area, provide value for money and look to some of the other aspects of their schemes.
The term "rural proofing" is used by Government quite a lot these days. It may not mean much to most people outside, but it comes into our decision making at a local level. It means that when a decision comes forward, there is a process by which the effect on a rural area is properly analysed and considered. We have been working with the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees to promote rural issues within the considerations of magistrates courts committees so that that they can focus on some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. I feel a little powerless today only in so far as we have not had an appeal, although it allows me to talk a little more about the particular situation.
There is some good news for the people who will need to use court services in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere. The Dyfed-Powys and Gwent magistrates courts committees have worked with the Court Service and local authorities during the past few years and have managed to put together a fairly bold and improving private finance initiative scheme to improve and upgrade much of the court estate in mid-Wales. The proposals are for new courthouses to be provided at Newport, Ebbw Vale, Newtown and Carmarthen, as well as refurbished court facilities at Abergavenny. The magistrates courts committees have had to make a case to the Department and to the paying authorities for the resources for replacement courthouses. They were able to consider many different issues, including work load, travel distances, costs and so on, and consulted widely over a two-year period until 2002, producing a strategy for the provision of more modern courthouses which will go a lot further towards meeting the requirements of legislation and key services.
§ Lembit ÖpikI am delighted that Newtown will eventually get its court and I am pleased that the Minister is sympathetic to that plan, but he will be aware that many of the lawyers in my constituency are concerned about the timetable because it is taking a long time. I do not expect him to provide specific information 236WH on that issue now, but I would be grateful if he could find out through whatever channels are available to him whether the process can be speeded up.
§ Mr. LeslieI shall certainly talk to my officials about the time scale. I know that there is a lot of anxiety locally, and that people want the process to be speeded up so that improved facilities are delivered as quickly as possible. We are all anxious to see those facilities, and all the local authorities involved have been supportive of the scheme. They want the new and refurbished courthouses to be completed as quickly as possible. Powys county council, which has discussed the proposed closures and the new courts at its public meeting, was supportive of the private finance initiative package.
My Department is considering closely the work that takes place between the Court Service and the magistrates courts committees, and the needs of court users—victims, witnesses and so on—so that we can find a way of improving services. We are even looking at combining the locations of county courts and crown courts so that we can overcome some of the problems that existed in the estate to date.
§ Mr. Roger WilliamsI thank the Minister for covering that point in such a complete way. One of the reasons given for the closure of the Ystradgynlais and Llandrindod Wells courts was the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but that Act was introduced not to close facilities for the disabled, but to improve the standard of access. We thought that that was a poor argument.
§ Mr. LeslieIt is certainly not the case that the only rationale for those closures related to disability. In fact, some of the primary reasons were more to do with court security. Poor security related not only to the fact that defendants were sometimes sharing an entrance with the public and magistrates, but to dock facilities and poor holding areas for imprisoned defendants. There was a need to take radical action.
The procurement process for the public-private partnership arrangement is due to commence early this year, which will mean some of the new court facilities will be provided in 2007. That is our broad timetable. We know that such matters can be subject to change, but I hope that we can stick to that timetable. The capital funding arrangements have been quite generous, particularly for Welsh facilities. In 2002–03, approximately £2.7 million was provided for courthouses in Wales. In the last financial year, £2.8 million was provided, and we anticipate a further £4 million in the current financial year. That will not only allow the completion of the new courthouse at Haverford West, but help to upgrade some of the other facilities outside the public-private finance package of schemes.
I reiterate that, given that there was no appeal from the paying authority, I have had a limited ability to intervene. The decision was very much a local one that was made with the support of the county council, which is where I suggest with respect that many of the hon. Gentleman's questions should be focused. Nevertheless, the Government and my Department remain keen to ensure that we provide investment so that good 237WH decisions can be made about new courthouse facilities. That is exceptionally important not only in serving the wider public, but in ensuring that we raise confidence in the justice system as far as we can. I know that we shall have a continuing dialogue on this matter.